California | Gay Marriage | News

California Supremes Reject Bid to Strike Marriage Ban from Ballot

The California Supreme Court has rejected a bid from gay and civil rights groups to remove Proposition 8, the measure that would limit marriage in the state to a man and a woman, from the November ballot:

Marriage1"Meeting in closed session, the court denied a petition calling for the removal of the initiative, Proposition 8, on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters. Gay rights lawyers also argued that petitions circulated to get the measure on the ballot inaccurately summarized its effect. The court, meeting at its regular weekly conference, denied the petition without comment in a brief order."

California Supreme Court keeps anti-gay marriage initiative on ballot [la times]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. So now that the stakes are raised who will stand with us for equality and who will be against us? Who will put their name in support of Proposition 8 and who will be against Prop 8? Time for the fence-sitters and have it both ways politicos to show their cards. It will be interesting to see where Diane Feinstien,Arnie,Barak,etc stand on this Proposition. It will speak volumns about their true commitment to GLBT equality.

    Posted by: ShawnSF | Jul 16, 2008 6:10:30 PM


  2. I thought both Arnie and Barack had come out against it. Not sure about Feinstein, but she was against the federal amendment...

    Posted by: Kevinvt | Jul 16, 2008 6:46:49 PM


  3. Ah, the right wing. They'll vote for war, but not for love.

    Posted by: Steve M | Jul 16, 2008 7:01:45 PM


  4. Let's just say that the plaintiff arguments were tortuous at best.

    Posted by: anon | Jul 16, 2008 7:12:45 PM


  5. It was a unanimous decision by the supremes to let the proposition stay on the ballot. I'm hoping that my fellow Californians recognize the hatefulness of this initiative and vote it down - but if they don't I think they're in for a rude surprise, either:
    1. The supremes will rule that the initiative is unconstitutional or...
    2. Fine - gay's can't be married, but since we ruled gay folk are entitled to equal protection, then NO ONE can get married

    but I honestly don't think it will come to that... I think people are more evolved on this issue...

    Posted by: Mike | Jul 16, 2008 7:59:33 PM


  6. It was a unanimous decision by the supremes to let the proposition stay on the ballot. I'm hoping that my fellow Californians recognize the hatefulness of this initiative and vote it down - but if they don't I think they're in for a rude surprise, either:
    1. The supremes will rule that the initiative is unconstitutional or...
    2. Fine - gay's can't be married, but since we ruled gay folk are entitled to equal protection, then NO ONE can get married

    but I honestly don't think it will come to that... I think people are more evolved on this issue...

    Posted by: Mike | Jul 16, 2008 8:00:39 PM


  7. Not ONE cent of taxes should be paid until we have full equality.

    Posted by: John | Jul 16, 2008 9:24:50 PM


  8. Instead of crying foul over this, why don't you get to work and make sure that the question posed isn't a loaded one? If the question is loaded along the lines of "Do you think marriage should be between one man and one woman?", the odds of it passing are relatively high. That's because a "no" response suggests - in the minds of undecided voters - that it would give the green light to polygamy.

    Keep in mind that there are many undecided voters who are against polygamy but for gay marriage, but who would be disinclined to vote no to the loaded question because it might allow for polygamy.

    So get off your haunches and get to work. And, most importantly, don't let the Right dictate the wording of the question as I've illustrated above.

    Posted by: jason | Jul 16, 2008 10:15:15 PM


  9. Jason's right: if you're a Californian, then do something to fight this in the real world.

    For those elsewhere, can someone posts a link to organizations that are fighting to stop Prop 8 so that others can make donations?

    And, Obama is against the marriage ban. McCain is for it. McCain called to lend his support to the Prop 8 organizers.

    The difficulty of Prop 8 is that bigotry is alive and well in 2008. Michigan past a voter referendum banning any kind of gay domestic partnership just over a year ago.

    Again, this is why the 2008 presidential race is crucial. The Supreme Court is up for grabs. The next president will be able to wipe out most of the Court's liberal presence since many of the 4 progressive judges are close to retiring. Imagine all of the psychos behind Prop 8 getting to influence McCain on his choice for a Supreme Court jurist.

    (This is where gay Republicans can get up on their high horses and talk about how wonderful their Republican brethren are and what an awesome world it would be if the GOP ran everything.)

    Posted by: noah | Jul 17, 2008 9:20:29 AM


  10. this is all a collosal waste of time and resources. should the initiative pass, it will be back in court and, once again, be found unconstitutional on the same grounds of equal protection. the plaintiffs had it exactly right.

    Posted by: el polacko | Jul 17, 2008 4:02:26 PM


  11. Jason, the language can't be changed. It already exists. The text of the proposed amendment is exactly the same as the old Prop 22:

    Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

    And EP, as I understand it, an amendment to the constitution can't be taken to court for being unconstitutional, even if it appears to contradict other parts.

    As to opponents of the marriage ban, here's one place to donate:
    http://www.equalityforall.com/home.php

    Posted by: kevinvt | Jul 17, 2008 4:12:30 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Music News: Frankmusik, Rihanna, NKOTB, Beatles iPod« «